House passes gay marriage ban

Goal to get issue on ballot as constitutional amendment.

February 16, 2011|KEVIN ALLEN | Tribune Staff Writer

INDIANAPOLIS -- A ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions is one step closer to being in Indiana's constitution.

The state House of Representatives voted 70-26 on Tuesday in favor of a measure that would allow Indiana voters to decide whether to adopt a constitutional amendment that says only marriage between one man and one woman shall be recognized as valid. It also says that any legal status that is "substantially similar" to marriage shall not be recognized.

House Joint Resolution 6 now moves to the Senate.

It needs to be approved by two consecutive, separately elected legislatures to be placed on the ballot. That means if the General Assembly adopts H.J.R. 6 this year, it would have to do so again in 2013 or 2014 to place the question on the ballot in 2014.

Rep. Eric Turner, the Marion Republican who sponsored the resolution, said 30 other states, including Michigan, have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

Advertisement

Indiana already has a law preventing gay and lesbian couples from marrying, but Turner said a constitutional amendment is necessary to protect against the possibility of a court decision overturning that law.

Rep. Wes Culver, R-Goshen, said it's important that Hoosier voters will be the ones making this decision.

"A lot of people think we've made the decision as legislators, but we haven't," said Culver, who is a co-sponsor of the resolution. "We've made the decision to put it back in the people's lap for them to decide -- if it passes the next legislature."

Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, voted against H.J.R. 6 on Tuesday.

"I think our constitution is a place to enumerate rights, not take them away," he said.

Dvorak said the provision in the amendment that would make civil unions unconstitutional goes too far.

"Even among people that are really supportive of defining marriage in the constitution as between one man and one woman, there is widespread support for something like civil unions for same-sex couples," he said. "I think everybody knows that same-sex couples live in every community in the state."

Democrats tried unsuccessfully last week to amend H.J.R. 6 and remove the provision banning anything that is "substantially similar" to marriage. They also argued that the language is vague and could endanger other shared benefits and contracts between same-sex couples.

Turner said those benefits have not been affected in other states with constitutional bans on same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Culver added that the amendment also will preserve the right of religious groups to consider whether a person is in a same-sex relationship when deciding whether to hire or serve them. For example, he said, organizations such as Christian adoption agencies have been told in other states that they must accept gay and lesbian couples.

"I don't see it as taking away rights from somebody," he said of H.J.R. 6. "I see it as working to protect the rights of those that believe in this institution."